Many of you have replied to concerned constituents that the matter is settled by the public statements of Hawaii officials, the HDOH birth index list, the newspaper birth announcements, and Obama’s posted short-form and long-form birth certificates. Onaka’s disclosure – the only one made by a HI official under oath –negates all that and fits the vast legal and forensic evidence collected so far, some of which is in my affidavit (privately posted at for NE criminal case #B2-119. Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Commander, Mike Zullo (both of whom initially disbelieved the skeptics) have both signed affidavits saying there is legal-quality FORENSIC evidence that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and draft registration are forged. Onaka has now revealed the REASON for the forgery: to hide the non-validity of the birth record. Evidence in my affidavit proves (among other things) that the 1960-64 birth index includes non-valid records.

Onaka’s disclosure is proof of results-altering election fraud in every state in this country, since fraudulent filing documents were used to place Obama on every state’s ballot. Absent a non-Hawaii birth record, Obama doesn’t even have a legally-determined birth date, place, or parents so nobody can lawfully say he meets the age or citizenship requirements to be President – and yet every Certification of Nomination falsely swears that he is eligible. EVERY electoral vote for Obama is thus now LEGALLY KNOWN to be fraudulently-obtained and must not be certified as lawful on Jan 8th. As with the Sandusky case, those with knowledge have legal responsibility to act, and that is now you.

Even if the majority in Congress wrongly certifies the electoral vote, that only makes Obama the President-elect. The 20th Amendment says that if the President-elect fails to qualify by Jan 20th, the Vice-President-elect must “act as President”. Without any legally-determined birth date, birth place, or birth parents, there is no way that Barack Obama could have qualified by Jan 20, 2009 – or can qualify by Jan 20, 2013, unless his birth facts ARE legally determined. The biggest favor any one of you can do for this whole process (and for Obama himself if he is to become President LAWFULLY) is to file a lawsuit (with standing) challenging Obama’s eligibility so that the records will be presented as evidence to a JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE person or body (not legislative, according to Hawaii statute 338-17, so Congress is powerless on this issue) and birth facts determined. That’s the only way Obama can “qualify” by Jan 20, 2013.

Our President has committed perjury 6 times by swearing (in AZ, NC, and WV) that he is eligible, knowing that he has no valid HI birth certificate (and claiming a Kenyan birth in his bio until 2007), and let his spokesmen pass off two forgeries as genuine on his behalf. He knowingly allowed a decorated military surgeon to lose his life’s savings and retirement and spend 6 months in prison for simply wanting to know if his combat orders were lawful, or whether they Constitutionally had to come from Joe Biden instead – who OPPOSED the “surge”.

It appears that many felonies have been committed. An impeachment must precede a criminal investigation and trial, so failure to impeach is obstruction of equal protection & the rule of law – without which, none of your life’s work even matters because the laws you make will only be enforced when politically expedient to the powerful. A banana republic.

187 Responses

Reblogged this on Sally's Political Blog and commented:
HANG THE TRAITOR!! HE COLLECTED OUR TAX DOLLARS TO PAY FOR HIS COLLEGE, PROMISING THAT HE WAS A FOREIGN STUDENT!!! HIS ASS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO USURP THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!

Since he is not a valid holder of office, would an impeachment have any validity? It seems as if a charge of treason and trying him on criminal charges would be more appropriate and not have to deal with an unwilling and complicit Senate!

I bet this is just another “pissing in the wind” story. Personally, I am sick and tired of reading about it, why? because nothing will be done as usual. People are wasting their time and money pursuing this. The man has more people behind him, that know all of this, yet, he continues to allude all prosecution. Surely, in 4 years someone would have come forward, that could prove without a shadow of a doubt, that he attended college as a foreign student, yet no one has.Same thing with the birth certificate, no one of any substance has came forward to say anything proving he is not a citizen of the US. We will never get this man out of office and I am willing to bet, he will still be in office come 2016!

Why don’t we start with where you got it? SOS Bennett said long ago that he was satisified with the reply he received from Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagamine. Why would this just now surface if Bennett is no longer investigating it? Is this nothing more than a rehash of those old stories that the wording Onaka used in his letter to Bennett was not a true verification, therefore he was tacitly stating the LFBC was a forgery?

I truly hope not because stories that are published without being vetted do nothing but make our side look bad.

Al thinks that if she said anything other than “it’s an exact star trek replicated copy from the original” that she’s admitting to forgery. It’s ridiculous, of course, but ridiculous is what birthers do best.

Jill Nagamine was asked three tiems by cold case posse commander Mike Zullo if what Obama posted at whitehouse.gov was what the DOH in Hawaii gave him. All three times she refused to answer. Got to love it when government officials act this guilty.

It’s gotta hurt that Orly Taitz, self proclaimed Queen of the Birthers, is now saying that your post is hoax and calling you a scam artist who is trying to discredit the Birther efforts.http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=372395

“There is an e-mail going around stating that Alvin Onaka confirmed that Obama’s ID is a forgery. It never happened. I received a copy of Onaka’s letter to Kobach and Bennett in my case against Kobach. Onaka never said that Obama’s papers are not valid. This is a wishful thinking or an attempt by someone to discredit us.”

There are Thems that say Obama is America’s savior.
There are people like me who believe Obama’s election is America’s Second and Third 911.
I can’t hold a knife to the throat of those in Hawaii protecting the Usurper and compromising America.
Our country is under attack by Obama and Liberalism.
Obama’s ideology is weaponized form of mass destruction.
The Democratic Party is the delivery vehicle.

What was posted here is a letter that I faxed to every Republican member of Congress. This article (which is also posted at my blog) has the link to the signed affidavit redacted, as well as the final 3 digits of the case number for the criminal case I reported in Lincoln, NE.

To understand how Onaka confirmed that the WH image is a forgery and that the actual HI record is non-valid you have to know what Bennett requested and have to know the rules Onaka had to obey when responding. HRS 338-14.3 says that Onaka has to verify to a qualified requestor the existence of a birth certificate and any other information that the requestor supplies to be verified – provided that a verification is a certification that the event actually happened that way. If a BC is legally valid it is considered prima facia evidence – IOW the facts are presumed to be accurate unless there is evidence to the contrary. So each fact that a requestor submits which is claimed on a legally valid BC has to be verified by Onaka in the letter of verification.

Bennett submitted 2 pages. The first was an official application form requesting that Onaka verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama. The 2nd page was a letter asking Onaka to verify – in ADDITION TO THE ITEMS ON THE APPLICATION FORM – some items from the birth certificate, as well as to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. Whatever Onaka CAN verify he had to verify on the letter of verification.

Onaka would not verify that the WH image was a true and accurate representation of the original record on file. By law, that has to mean that it’s not. He did say that the information contained in the White House image matches the original record. Since male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama are contained on the White House image, those match what is on the original record. Yet Onaka does not use any of those words in his verification (except Honolulu, saying the BC “indicates” – claims – a Honolulu birth). He did not verify any of those things, even though they are claimed on their record.

The only lawful reason for him to fail to verify those things is if the record they have (which makes all those claims) is not legally valid.

HRS 338-14.3 says that Onaka has to verify to a qualified requestor the existence of a birth certificate and any other information that the requestor supplies to be verified – provided that a verification is a certification that the event actually happened that way.

Except your “provided . . that the event actually happened that way” isn’t language found in the statute. Nothing in the Hawaii Statutes requires the person providing a verification to given opinion or certify that the fact submitted “happened that way” or that the original record is “valid.” Vital records, regularly maintained, are presumed valid. The person doing the verification is merely required to compare the submitted facts to the original information on file at DOH and indicate whether the factual information matches. Once that has been done, the the statute (HRS 338-14.3(b)) establishes the legal validity of that fact:

(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.

SOS Bennett requested the fact of President Obama’s birthplace in Hawaii be verified. Dr. Onaka has verified that fact. Thus, by operation of law Obama’s birth in Hawaii has been certified “for all purposes.”

If a BC is legally valid it is considered prima facia evidence . .

You have the order of conditions backwards. Once a fact has been verified according to the original record, THEN by statute that verification is certification for all purposes that the event occurred as stated. It is prima facie evidence of the vital event.

Onaka would not verify that the WH image was a true and accurate representation of the original record on file.

The original in the bound volumes is not on green security paper. Copies are made onto that paper for authentication and evidentiary purposes. So Onaka could not make a verification as to the “representation” of the respective images, as they would appear somewhat different. But he could and did make a verification of the factual information contained on the WH LFBC submitted by Bennett.

By law, that has to mean that it’s not.

Rather, by that that means the facts verified have been established as true “for all purposes” under Hawaiian records and law. And those records are entitled to Full Faith & Credit per the U.S. Constitution.

brianh3 …Uh, sorry, but what in the H-double-hockey-sticks are you talking about, doooode? You make no sense. Just answer this, Counselor, are you pro or con this article? What you’ve written here is hard-to-follow gibberish, and I’ve got three college degrees!

@blessuseveryone Your post has no “reply” link below it for some reason.

what in the H-double-hockey-sticks are you talking about, doooode? You make no sense. Just answer this, Counselor, are you pro or con this article? What you’ve written here is hard-to-follow gibberish, and I’ve got three college degrees!

What part isn’t clear? I hightlight segments from Butterdezillon and then respond to that. I write clearly. If you’re not following, I’m not sure what I can do to help you.

And as to your one substantive question: the sole matter of import as to the Onaka verifications is whether Barack Obama was born in the United States. And on that point Dr. Onaka states is succinct and absolutely clear terms: “A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

Now I ask of anyone who thinks the Onaka verification somehow isn’t “clear” enough: How on earth could he POSSIBLY have worded his statement to make it any more clear as to the point at issue: that President Obama was in fact born in Hawaii? How else could he have worded this?

Today’s news: Obama won every single one of the 332 Electoral Votes that he won in the general election. Not one single elector changed her or his vote from Obama to Romney. Not one single elector refused to vote or voted for a candidate other than Obama and Romney.

The reason is that (1) not one of them believes the nutty idea that Obama was born in a foreign country; and (2) not one of them believe the crazy birther theory that two citizen parents are required to make a Natural Born US Citizen since the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that the meaning comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

These views are, btw, shared by such conservative leaders as Paul Ryan, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review. None of these people or institutions believe that Obama’s birth certificate was forged, and none believe that the officials in Hawaii of BOTH parties (including the former Republican governor) are lying when they say that they sent the short form and long form birth certificates to Obama and that the original birth certificate exists in the files of the DOH and that it shows that Obama was born in Hawaii.

The Supreme Court is incapable of historical research before constitutional precedent and does not have the power to interpret what a natural-born citizen is, unless you believe that Marbury vs. Madison wasn’t the first major distortion of the power of the Supreme Court “under” the Constitution. “Under” does not mean “in.” The court only has the power to accept what the term means–an American citizen born to two American citizen parents in an American state, which also leaves John McCain out in the cold. If you are interested in real American history unrevised, visit The Constitutionist.com. Unfortunately, it takes time to educate oneself. America prefers willful ignorance.

Where is this “public” certification, dawg? You talk big but produce bupkus. And Sally, loopyloo, maybe you should reserve the rabid howling until such “public” certification is actually publicly produced, eh?

Where was the “public”certification of Mitt Romney’s place of birth? Where was the “public” certification of George W. Bush’s place of birth? Where was the “public”certification of Mitt Romney’s place of birth?

IN CONTRAST To them, Obama’s place of birth was certified by officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii including the former Republican governor of Hawaii. And it is still further confirmed by the public Index Data file and by the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send notices to the ‘Health Bureau Statistics” section of the newspapers). And the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii is still further confirmed by the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley. Hawaii is BTW thousands of miles from the nearest foreign country and very few women traveled late in pregnancy in 1961.

Re claims of forgery:

Those are only the claims of birther “experts”—who have not shown that they are even experts and who CERTAINLY have not shown that they are fair and impartial. That is why they are not believed by Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, the National Review or John McCain, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Ron Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Etc.

Birther sites have not shown you these experts, have they?

Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said: “The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it. … I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

John Woodman, independent computer professional, said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.

Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.

Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery. “I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

The reason that birthers claim that Obama’s birth certificate is false is well understood to be caused by the fact that people who hate Obama make claims against him for their own motives. Moreover, for Obama not to be a Natural Born Citizen, Obama would have had to have been born in some country other than in the USA, and that—considering how far Hawaii is from the nearest foreign country and the fact that pregnant women seldom traveled long distances late in pregnancy in 1961 AND that the officials in Hawaii and the birth certificate and the birth notices in Hawaii say that he was born in Hawaii—is not very high.

Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in
Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and
that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.

And here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda
Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in
Kapiolani Hospital

(And as you can see the section of the paper is called “Health Bureau Statistics”. Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)

Mitt Romney was certified…he is born from two citizen parents on American soil…..Obama is is dual citizen due to his father was never a citizen of the United States… and therefore Barry can not be a “natural born citizen”…Just think, what if Barry’s mom was pregnated by Saddam Hussien or Bin Laden….Do you actually think that our founders meant for a NBC to be born from a foreigner….You afterbirthers have alot to realize.

It is not a worthy goal to put out a hoax…unless you are The Onion or perhaps The People’s Cube.
What facts or additional substance can you provide that would provide us Patriots with a little comfort the the end of Obama is nigh?

Actually not Havocovah. In most of those cases evidence was not admitted. Care to be humiliated. Come on my radio show and debate me on the issue. http://www.teapartypowerhour.com Making Obots look stupid has become a hobby for me.

Folks, please read at http://www.butterdezillion.wordpress.com . Unless a person has seen the COMPLETE request made by Bennett and read the hawaii statutes to see what rules Onaka had to follow when responding, they can’t understand that Onaka’s confirmation of a non-valid HI BC is seen in what he DIDN’T say even though he is required by law to say it if the record is valid. Specifically, look on his verification and notice that the words male, Aug 4, 1961, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama (Sr, not Jr) are never used. Onaka did not verify those birth facts, even though he verified that they are on the original record. If that record was legally valid he would HAVE to verify those specific facts in his letter of verification.

Attorney Larry Klayman sent a letter explaining all this to DNC Counsel Bob Bauer 4 days before the DNC Convention began. The Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee fashioned their request for a letter of verification specifically so that Onaka would be able to verify what they requested even with a legally non-valid BC for Obama, which signaled to me that they understood Onaka to be revealing that the record HI has is non-valid. I confirmed the legal reasoning with Larry Klayman, Mario Apuzzo, and Larry Elgin. That’s 5 attorneys – at least 4 of whom have argued cases based on the HI BC being legally valid – who have recognized that Onaka confirmed a non-valid HI BC. That’s a lot of consensus from varying and hostile sources.

Prove that you are unable to back up your claim that “Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery”?

Simple. Until you are able to provide some validatable evidence that Onaka said what you claim he said, it’s proven that you are unable to back up that claim.

If you’re going to fault Obama for not providing verifiable proof of his birthplace, you should try to be better than that an provide verifiable proof of your own claims.

And he left four Americans in Bengazi to be slaughtered by is Islamic Brothers, while lying and holding office illegally! If an American had been President, those people would have been sent help! Trial for Treason and Execution, if found guilty, is all this Kenyan pile of monkey feces deserves!

If his mother is an American citizen, why isn’t he an American citizen?

The rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986: “When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14.”

His mother lived in the US until her late teens. This meets the criteria. What’s the issue?

No that has nothing to do with it. Liberals are the true racists in this country. They’ve done everything possible to keep blacks poor and dependent on the government so they can be controlled them as one large voting block. Why do liberals ignore the many racist comments from democrats? I’m sorry I forgot that liberals get a free pass on racist behavior.

My concern with Obama is a poorly forged birth certificate, an even more poorly forged selective service card, and a hand-me-down social security number. That would bother me no matter what the color of the politician.

BTW, when are you liberals going to quit playing the race card? In America, the new liberal definition of racist is anyone who questions Obama’s eligibility or his policies. It also has been expanded to include anyone who is destroying a liberal in an argument.

Stanley Ann was born on November 29th, 1942. That means she would not be five years past the age of 14 until November 29, 1961. Obama was born August 4, 1961. She missed it by almost 4 months. Thank you for providing us with yet another example of why liberals can’t be trusted to do valid research or even simple math problems.

Except you birthers can’t seem to figure out what you believe. In one breath you say she’s not eligible to pass on citizenship (which only applies if Obama was born overseas, He wasn’t) but then also have claimed previously that Ann Dunham was never legally married. If you believe the claim that she wasn’t married then the law that would apply would shift to her needing to be in the US one year after her 14th birthday instead of 5. So depending on which birther claim you believe the years needed to be in the US after her 14th birthday would shift. None of this matters anyway since Obama was born in the US.

Dear God if only you could see yourselves from the outside. He is your democratically elected president what does it even matter what his birth certificate says? Every single one of you has a migrant back ground – unless you’re Native American which I strongly suspect you are not. Hypocrisy alive and well eh?

If only you could see yourself, V.!
Your ideology is how tyranny gets a leg up.
You are an enemy of everything American if you don’t care a Usurper is president.
Unbelievable!
And they walk among us vote.

Hundreds of failed Birther cases have not been able to make a dent in these facts. Neither the facts nor the law are on the side of the Birthers. This is a 5 year nervous breakdown on the part of angry hateful white people.

Obama is not constitutional because a natural-born citizen constitutionally is an American citizen born to two American citizens in an American state. Please visit The-Constitutionist.com. John Jay’s definition of natural born Citizen became known to the world through Sir William Scott’s 1797 revised edition of Vattel’s The Law of Nations after Jay personally had informed Scott of the definition during post negotiations in 1795 in London relating to the Jay Treaty .

OMG……….Have you ever taken a history class that you passed or even remained awake in?
It is all covered in that pesky little document that the ‘O’Hole just hates called the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. YOU are one of the TRUE threats to this country, that along with the rest of the “Sheeple” that voted for the usurper (even the dead ones)
Keep drinking the koolaid.

Studies have deemed Obama’s birth certificate fake countless of times. This is nothing new, people.
It doesn’t matter. You could have video evidence of Obama being born someone else and people would not care.
Obama is going to remain the president until 2016.
No amount of whining is going to do anything about it.
You cannot solve political corruption through the political process.

I love the author stating that the story is still very “fluid” and that he’ll be “investigating further” next week. Translation: This is a BS rumor and the story hasn’t been vetted. As someone close to the Arpaio investigation, I can tell you that fake stories like this are a headache to the cold case posse and only damage the reputation of those skeptical of Obama’s eligibility to be President.

These inconvenient truths won’t get you any thumbs up from the birfer crew. The fact that NONE of these birfer “breaking stories” has ever panned out means nothing to them. They will ALWAYS fall for the next Big Lie and blame Obama’s operatives for the failure of the last one.

It’s a good thing they don’t have enough money to really make hay out of this.

Actually, the evidence collected thus far would be more than sufficient to put you or me in jail. You seem to show up as a troll on a lot of birther sites. Are you still able to get full-time work as an Obot? Just wondering?

Actually there is a considerable amount of proof that his LFBC has been altered, his selective service registration is a complete fraud right down to the phony U.S. Postal Stamp, and his SSN was issued in a state he never lived in, once belonged to someone else, and will not pass e-verify. I personally don’t believe this story, but it’s not a reason to discount the evidence that has been gathered.

If by considerable you mean the rantings of people not even qualified to comment on it then yeah. Otherwise there is no actual proof it was altered in any way to change the contents. In fact the DOH says the contents match what is on file. The Selective Service also verified he was properly registered in 1980. There was no “phony postal stamp”. Social security is a federal entity marky it’s not unusual to have a social prefix that matches another state. In fact Social Security even includes a statement on their site that the prefixes don’t have meaning as assignments by states. The prefix is used internally. Ask some older folks about their socials you’re bound to find someone in your extended circle that has a prefix that doesn’t “match”. It didn’t belong to anyone else. The person the birthers claimed it belonged to actually had a different social. Linda Jordan used the self-check everify system when she made her claim. Back then the program only existed in 21 states: Illinois, Hawaii and DC weren’t among the places that the system was active which is why there was no data. You believe pretty much every birther story out there Mark why not some claim by Al Hendershot where he presents absolutely nothing to back up his claim.

If only we could find that this man is not Born in the U.S. and therefore cannot be President, it would be wonderful, because wouldn’t that make all the Bills he put forth such as Obamacare null and void!!!

The Court hearing is Jan. 3 2013 at 2 PM Orly has subpoenaed Onaka, Astrue (SS) the Selective Service head the Postmaster Gen., Obama’s counsel. The Judge England has said he is not entertaining telephone appearances.
However, Judge England may be damaged goods.
I do not believe this post. Yes Onaka did parse his response to Bennett and Bennett should have pushed him On it. However, Onaka needs to appear on Thursday, Jan 3 2013 at 2 PM at Judge England’s courtroom in Sacramento.
We can only pray..

Mark Gillar why would Hav want to go on your show when you don’t even do live shows and have a penchant for burying shows that you get your ass handed to you on. Take for instance how Fogbow Foggy’s episode with you is missing from your archives. I find it funny how you ask Al for proof when you time and time again show an inability to show any bit of critical thinking to any of the birther claims. Take for instance how you believed Used Car Salesman Zullo and Joe Arpaio when they lied to you about the 1961 coding manual which actually came from 1969. Or for instance their lie that they actually talked to Verna Lee.

So.. Can I ask? Why are you telling others to take president Obama to court ? Why can’t you do it yourself? Do you think you are superior than everyone else? Kinda like bin laden ordering suicide bombers to blow up people because they will find 27 virgins – if it was that appealing why didn’t he himself blow himself up? That’s the same as what you are telling others to do. Take the wrap for your ideas.

The evidence is overwhelming and the actions by this administration clearly shows their intent. Why has it taken so long and how much longer can the media ignore this? The planted Muslim MUST be removed and trialed for treason along with the other supporters in the house that certified the fraudulent candidate!!
Impeach Obama and bring him and his accomplices to trial for treason!

First, somewhere, deep down in your heart, you may mean well. You may believe these ideas you hold about what the law says. I have to acknowledge that. I think you’re wholly misguided and of course the record bears that out, but I do have some respect for dedication, wrongheaded as it may be.

Second, you obviously love to read and write. Why don’t you take that passion and those skills and tutor someone who is illiterate or struggling? Kids, teens and adults who are just slipping behind in life because they can’t read or write well could use your talents.

Third, thank you for the offer of the freebie book. That’s kind. I won’t take you up on it, but thanks.

Fourth, again, the Birthers are just wrong wrong wrong on the facts and the law. Their campaign of 5 years now has been nothing but one failure after another, and it ought to be simply declared over and every subsequent case brought at the peril of sanctions. This is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars and an embarassment to the United States. I look forward to the day when it finally sputters out and you guys shrug and say “We were wrong.” I wish you would stop now and look at what you’re donig but I don’t think you will. You could all use your time and talents in better ways.

“Second, you obviously love to read and write. Why don’t you take that passion and those skills and tutor someone who is illiterate or struggling? Kids, teens and adults who are just slipping behind in life because they can’t read or write well could use your talents.”

Yes, I love to read and educate myself. Obviously you don’t. You’d rather rely on the conclusions of others who steadfastly cling to willful ignorance. There are 2,338 footnoted historical sources in my eBook. I am trying to give those to you free. You don’t want them. As for the people you identify as slipping behind in life by lack of education, I wonder how many are willfully ignorant. You can’t teach the wilfully ignorant.

“This is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars and an embarassment to the United States. I look forward to the day when it finally sputters out and you guys shrug and say ‘We were wrong.” I wish you would stop now and look at what you’re donig but I don’t think you will.”

I claim I am right. The embarrassment to the United States is her willfully ignorant voter population. The truth about the presidential eligibility clause is in my eBook. The only way to prove I am wrong is to read my eBook and prove my facts and conclusions to be wrong. Like they say, you can’t win the lottery if you don’t play. How do you expect to win against me if you won’t read my eBook? Remember that woman who claimed to have won the lottery when another person turned in the winning ticket? She didn’t get the money, did she? Good luck. Stop talking emotions and begin talking facts.

LoveandDarkness writes: “Fourth, again, the Birthers are just wrong wrong wrong on the facts and the law.”

What irony?
Love and Darkness…in fact, elected Obama, who, by any standard is ineligible as president.

“Love” for the belief a black man with immorality exceeding Hitler might lead America to new heights…
And “Darkness” … Stupefying ignorance unbecoming the American species.

Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on Mankind.
His presidency will bring the death of many innocents, civial war if not glaobl war.
Wait til the world finds out “Love and Darkness” or, America’s Left … elected a fraud and sent America’s military out to kill people in the name of a Usurper!

The big problem the birthers have is getting admissible evidence. None of there evidence is admissible. Orly is presenting a digital copy (hearsay) as evidence.

The whole layers arguement is absolutely nonsense, Adobe creates layers when you scan a document, it does it to compress the document. You can scan something without layers but it will be huge, sort of like an avi file compared to an MP4 file.

Wrong. Having worked in Illustrator for over 15 years, using it every single day of my life, I can tell you 1.) Adobe Illustrator does NOT create layers unless you TELL it to create layers, and 2.) I saw within 30 seconds of pulling up the WH document that this online POS is a fake, and a sad, bad one at that. It’s so blatantly obvious that it’s been tampered with in every conceivable way that only a moo-cow public would refuse to see it. Again, as is so often the case with these people, some “expert” on his “team” BS’d and said “Lemme do it, boss, lemme do it! I can do it, I swear, boss, I know how! I promise!” and obviously did not. And since you don’t exactly go advertising for an expert to do this kind of “job”, the fraud that now will live in infamy as the biggest goof-up in history was born. I can hear the prez now “Dohhhh! Why’d I trust that screwup??!” And “a digital copy hearsay”? Yeah, that’s EXACTLY what the WH BC document is on their website. HEARSAY! You just made our point! Show me the real deal, idiots!

This not really new. In May, 2012 Secretary of State Bennett from Arizona received a certified verification from Hawaii’s DOH verifing the President’s birth in Hawaii. His original request to Hawaii was on their form that is used to obtain a copy of a birth certificate,

In verifing the birth, Dr. Onaka verified the information on the form. That’s how the Hawaiian statute reads: §338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.

Sos Kris Kobach of Kansas received a certified verification from Dr. Onaka in September and said the following, “… the birth certificate on record with the state of Hawaii matches the birth certificate that is on the White House website, so I have no doubt.”

Even if Obama’s birth certificate were legal, it would make no difference. The presidential eligibility clause in the Constitution disqualifies him. Read The-Constitutionist.com and read the eBook. Learn the meaning of natural-born citizen.

Try reading the COnstitution and the Supreme Court rulings on citizenship. All the Constitution says that to be eligible to be POTUS, one has to be a natural-born citizen. It does not define precisely what that is. We have to look to the Supreme Court and in Wong Kim Ark they ruled that if you’re born in the United States, unless you’re the child of a foreign diplomat or an invading army, you’re a natural-born citizen.

Sorry. The Supreme Court is wrong. You need to read my eBook. In it, you will find other distortions of the Constitution introduced by the Supreme Court. For example, Roberts unconstitutionally used a British legal artifice known as an explanatory act to explain that Obamacare’s fee really meant tax. Be open to learning more about the Constitution than you ever wanted to. Remember, there was no constitutional precedent until after the Constitution was adopted. The Supreme Court does not have the right to interpret what is in the Constitution, the same as the Pope does not have the right to judge God. The created does not have the right to judge the creator. The Constitution created the Supreme Court. Read my eBook and you will be introduced to founders that expressed the same opinion.

What he should actually be impeached for is treasom against America for repeatedly attacking the Constitution and the rights of the American people. And he has new attacks in the works, starting with confiscating our guns. If you think gun confiscation is a good thing, do some research into how Australia and the UK are doing as far as crime rates and murders connected with home invasion robberies have increased since the citiizens right to bear arms and their guns were taking away!
Do you actually believe we will be protected from criminals by giving up our guns? Do you really think the criminal population will give up their guns or that the police will have the man power to protect us from them?

Oboma wrote in his book he was adopted in Indonesia. To become an Indonesian he would have to give up any other citizenship he had. Where are the repatriation records? Oh wait Repatriation is only for Americans. The SS# Oboma uses fails E-Verify. Because he never applied for a SS# Apparently the Social Security #’s are used for Americans. Oboma came to the USA as a foreign aid student. He never applied for a American Passport. Apparently that service is provided for Americans. B. Hussain Oboma flew to Pakistan in 1981 on his Indonesian passport. The birth certificate does not matter. Oboma is a thespian a Usurper and a fraud.

He did not write that he was adopted in Indonesia. He could not have given up his citizenship because under US law,a minor cannot give up their US citizenship nor can their parents or legal guardians do it for him. The “SS # failing E-Verify” has been debunked so many times it’s tiresome to answer that. Obama did not come to the United States as a foreign student because he is an American Citizen. He did not have to apply for an American passport because he is an American citizen. He did not fly to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport because he is an American nor Indonesian citizen.

You don’t have to be willfully ignorant. You can learn what natural-born citizen means by consulting The-Constitutionist.com and buying a 1722-page eBook. The eBook lays it all out. You, like almost one-hundred percent of Americans, liberal or conservative, including Orly Taitz, Mario Apuzzo, Larry Klayman, Joseph Farah, Jim DeMint, Edwin Feulner, Jerome Corsi and many others–when it comes to my eBook–simply do not wish to invest the extra work in definitive education. Read The-Constitutionist.com and then debate me on some issue in it. Real debate is needed, not all this pseudo-debate.
My book ends basically in the 1840s and it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a natural born Citizen is a citizen born in a country to two citizens of that country. Only one person till now has dared to debate me publicly. Many have written my eBook off without reading it or without even going to the web site. No wonder America is 25th in education worldwide.

Or one can simply read U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which is the seminal case addressing the birth status of a person born in the U.S. to alien parents, and understand why every court from Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Indiana Ct. App. 2009) onwards which has addressed the “two citizen parent” argument as to President Obama has concluded based on WKA that Obama is a natural born citizen.

One suspects your 1700 page effort is replete with a lot of pseudo-legal garble and irrelevancies.

Unlike you, I don’t assume. I research. Over 1,000 pages of my eBook are quotes, citations, and excerpts in context from five centuries of notes, essays, documents and books of the original authors. Our founders and framers did not use “pseudo-legal garble and irrelevancies.” They shunned willful ignorance. They did not embrace it. Most read many sets of historical and legal works that were far longer than 1,700 pages. Some spent 12-14 hours a day reading in their libraries among their thousands of books. Would you mind divulging how large your library is and how many hours a day you read?
Many of our founders believed that the Supreme Court had no right to interpret the Constitution. Had the framers wanted to grant that power, why did they write “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made . . .”? I have over two hundred dictionaries spanning four centuries in my library. Not a single one lists “in” as a definition or synonym for “under.” More framers than not thought that an entity (Supreme Court) created by a creator (the Constitution) cannot sit in jugement of its creator.
My book ends in in 1840. Marbury vs. Madison was the first major distortion of the Constitution. Many followed, including your cited cases. You give up your right to think for yourself by deferring to Supreme Court justices with activist agendas. They are like you. They will hold onto to their ignorance. They will not read my eBook. If you read my eBook, I will gladly debate all the “pseudo-legal garble and irrelevancies” you point out.

It seems this site cuts off the ‘reply’ button after two levels of reply, so I’m reply to myself which should put this below your comments.

Unlike you, I don’t assume. I research.

And I research as well. But you and I have a difference as to what is the more relevant authorities.

Most read many sets of historical and legal works that were far longer than 1,700 pages.

And the legal treatise cited most requently by the Framers of the Constitution was Blackstone’s Commentaries, which set forth the jus soli English common law rule of “natural born subject.” That’s why the SCOTUS in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark stated that Constitutional language is to be understood by reference to the history of the ECL, devoting extensive analysis to English law as to NBS and interpreting NBC to have adopted the “same rule.”

Many of our founders believed that the Supreme Court had no right to interpret the Constitution.

So what? That was hardly a universal sentiment.

My book ends in in 1840.

Which, insofar as the question of Natural Born Citizen goes, is manifestly deficient. Any question as to the Constitution and meaning of NBC necessarily has to account for U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

Marbury vs. Madison was the first major distortion of the Constitution.

Yet, if judicial review was such a glaring judicial usurpation of power, then why, given 250 years to do so, has Congress never enacted an amendment to the Constitution to retract that power from the judiciary? It seems you’re in the distinct minority feeling the decision was improper. The governments, federal and state, have supported it.

<i.You give up your right to think for yourself by deferring to Supreme Court justices with activist agendas.

I appreciate appeals to history. I have a history degree from a highly esteemed institution where ivy grows. But then I went to law school. You may believe you’re “thinking for yourself” by ignoring what the Supreme Court has said. But you won’t win many cases in a court ignoring them. You follow the mistake of Mario Apuzzo and others: you make primary appeal to historical sources (though such appeals seem invariably to mis-state the source) and downplay or disregard entirely the SCOTUS cases. When it comes to debating a Constitutional law question, you’ve got your authority structure upside down.

I will gladly debate all the “pseudo-legal garble and irrelevancies” you point out.

You won’t go to my web site at The-Constitutionist.com. You won’t read my eBook but you will tell me that it’s pointless to debate me. How convenient! Willful ignorance is choosing ignorance willfully. What do you call refusing to read my web site and my eBook? If my methodology of offering 1,700 pages to prove my point is “off-kilter,” what is your methodology in discounting my arguments without reading them. You are the same as Karl Rove.

I don’t want to win any cases in courts that overstep their authority. My target is the American voter and the U.S. Congress that has the constitutional authority to impeach President Obama for not being constitutionally qualified. If you visit my web site, you will see that they choose willful ignorance too.

You use your academic background as an argument to support your viewpoint. I had a 4.0 in high school. I was the school’s valedictorian. I invented the insect zapper in my senior year. In those days, corporations stole students’ ideas at science fairs with impunity. I attended seven universities and colleges including two overseas, one of which was attended by some of the greatest public jurists in history. I wrote a manuscript on Africa that the deceased head of CalTech’s Munger Africana Library notes considered the best manuscript he had ever read on Africa. He published one chapter from it. He wanted to publish all one thousand pages but the university wouldn’t pay for it.

Today, CalTech won’t accept a few complimentary copies of my eBook donated in his honor. That’s the kind of Ivy League universities we have. The information is at my web site. I have no respect for Ivy League universities because willfully ignorant people are their product. Georgetown University and Mike Seidman are prime examples of the trend of most American universities, Ivy League or not.

I forgot to mention that a great deal of information on Blackstone’s view of natural-born subject and his influence on America’s constitutional framers is covered in my eBook. In fact, I cover the influence of almost all jurists worldwide on our framers. Do you know the uncredited reference sources of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and international diplomatic law? Do you know which public jurist has been cited most often by the U.S. Supreme Court? Do you know the origin of trial by jury? These are but a few of the questions answered in my eBook. Every lawyer should have a copy, but I guess that’s an insult since lawyers are interested only in legal precedent, the most invasive cancer of our legal system.

I also forgot to repudiate your belief by implication that Blackstone was that the most influential on the framers’ minds. You stated, “And the legal treatise cited most requently by the Framers of the Constitution was Blackstone’s Commentaries, which set forth the jus soli English common law rule of ‘natural born subject.'” Blackstone’s Commentaries was not the most quoted or the most influential of the works of public juirists.

In my eBook, I wrote:

“Commentaries was a favorite of the framers at the Constitutional Convention, but as usual, historians go too far in their sense of Blackstone’s influence. Robert Ferguson the historian noted “all our formative documents—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the seminal decisions of the Supreme Court under John Marshall—were drafted by attorneys steeped in Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. So much was this the case that the Commentaries rank second only to the Bible as a literary and intellectual influence on the history of American
institutions.” Blackstone was influential, as was Cicero, Gaius, Aristotle, Locke, Hobbes,
Kames, Vattel, Grotius, Puffendorf, Bacon and scores of others. Some of the men deeply
involved in the American Revolution had personal libraries of over ten thousand books. They did
not rely on a single author or jurist in the law section of their libraries. Most read Greek, French
and Latin and had sources before, after and beyond Blackstone. All the lawyers had studied
Blackstone as well as Vattel in the law departments of the colleges they attended. Alexander
Hamilton quoted Blackstone and so did Jefferson, though the latter denounced the Commentaries
as ‘honeyed Mansfieldism,’ a barb directed at Lord Mansfield, the great conservative English
jurist, and at Blackstone.”

My eBook clearly shows that Blackstone was not the most prominent influence. But you will never learn that because you refuse to read my arguments.

I also forgot to repudiate your belief by implication that Blackstone was the most influential on the framers’ minds. You stated, “And the legal treatise cited most requently by the Framers of the Constitution was Blackstone’s Commentaries, which set forth the jus soli English common law rule of “natural born subject.” Blackstone’s Commentaries was not the most quoted or the most influential of the works of public juirists.

In my eBook, I wrote:

“Commentaries was a favorite of the framers at the Constitutional Convention, but as usual, historians go too far in their sense of Blackstone’s influence. Robert Ferguson the historian noted ‘all our formative documents—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the seminal decisions of the Supreme Court under John Marshall—were drafted by attorneys steeped in Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. So much was this the case that the Commentaries rank second only to the Bible as a literary and intellectual influence on the history of American
institutions.’ Blackstone was influential, as was Cicero, Gaius, Aristotle, Locke, Hobbes,
Kames, Vattel, Grotius, Puffendorf, Bacon and scores of others. Some of the men deeply
involved in the American Revolution had personal libraries of over ten thousand books. They did
not rely on a single author or jurist in the law section of their libraries. Most read Greek, French
and Latin and had sources before, after and beyond Blackstone. All the lawyers had studied
Blackstone as well as Vattel in the law departments of the colleges they attended. Alexander
Hamilton quoted Blackstone and so did Jefferson, though the latter denounced the Commentaries
as ‘honeyed Mansfieldism,’ a barb directed at Lord Mansfield, the great conservative English
jurist, and at Blackstone.”

My eBook clearly shows that Blackstone was not the most prominent influence. But you will never have a chance to learn that because you refuse to read my eBook.

You won’t go to my web site at The-Constitutionist.com. You won’t read my eBook but you will tell me that it’s pointless to debate me. How convenient! Willful ignorance is choosing ignorance willfully. What do you call refusing to read my web site and my eBook?

I call it recognition that we differ on what we view as the most important authorities. In the world I inhabit (i.e., that of our Constitutional/legal system) the primary authorites are (in order) 1) the Constitution, Supreme Court caselaw, federal statutes, 2) lower federal court decisions, 3) legal treatises, and 4) historical sources (e.g., a letter from John Jay). In your world, it seems, you wish to have the argument about items ##3 and 4, while dismissing the first two with a wave of the hand saying they are incorrect.

So the decision tree points to debate as a waste of time. If the prevailing view under the caselaw is correct insofar as its historical analysis goes, then you are wrong to the extent your argue the historical record suggests a different understanding of “natural born citizen.” Though if somehow the courts have gotten it wrong, and there is substantial weight of authority in the historical record as to a different understanding NBC, then all that gets you or someone is the possibility of taking a case to the SCOTUS and try to get them to revisit the topic. But unless and until that is done, your 1700 pages are but so much sideshow. Purely academic, if anything.

What is your methodology in discounting my arguments without reading them.

It’s a methodology that looks in the first instance to SCOTUS and other federal court caselaw, which you apparently dismiss entirely. There’s no point to my reading your arguments.

You use your academic background as an argument to support your viewpoint.

No. I brought it up to counter your insinuation that I am academically lazy or don’t read or being wilfully ignorant.

I am none of those things. Rather, I approach the topic from a legal/academic point of view which you don’t apparently wish to entertain.

I am sure you have some noble reason for not demonstrating your legal prowess by answering the legal questions I posed.

Again, how convenient that you won’t read my arguments because they do not fit in your structure of research. In other words, you are the paradigm of the typical lawyer or judge, who will only deign to debate if the opponent follows the self-ordained script of the judiciary. I suggest that is willful ignorance in action and the very reason that no one in over two hundred years, besides I, has resolved the enigma of natural-born citizenship. You are right that lawyers and judges stand fast because, to do otherwise, might erode their power. Money and power are sources of corruption and tyranny, although not always.

I wrote in my eBook and in The-Constitutionist.com:

In June of 2011, Mr. Rove read my first email. He responded:

sorry – no court in the history of America has agreed with your argument

Mr. Rove and I exchanged several emails until I sent the following paragraph:

I am truly gratified that you read my email. But what argument do you refer to? You haven’t heard my argument. You will never hear it unless you come to my abode and sign a non-disclosure agreement. Yours is a foolish response. No court in America has ever been presented with the evidence I have. Even if a court were presented with it, activist judges on the bench would likely judge by their agenda and not the facts. I am interested in reaching the American people. You make the same mistake all lawyers have made. You think the proof lies in legal precedent. Lawyers have contributed so much to the downfall of our country by way of their stilted reasoning. The truth of natural-born citizenship is an historical, linguistic, and legal problem, not just a legal problem. When my book comes out, your response will be properly noted as will all the other foolish responses I have received. Obama may be in office and you will look like the fools you are. You, like all those before you, cannot think outside the box. No surprise. You will eat crow. I guarantee it. For now, you can think you are clever. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Mr. Rove responded:

Thanks, but again, no U.S. court has every [sic] agreed with your theory that only someone born on American soil of two American citizen parents is a natural born citizen. Never. Ever.

I’ve seen sections of your email (e.g., Vattel – a Swiss philosopher!) in other birther missives and it is all hogwash. No court has ever held your theory is correct and I don’t need to waste any more time with someone who calls me an idiot. Your future emails will be routed directly to the trash.
-Karl Rove

As I stated before, you are like Karl Rove in your refusal to read my arguments. You are like those in history that stuck to the belief that the world was flat when opponents began to argue that the world was round. In this issue of presidential eligibility, those that refuse to contemplate my correlative, circumstantial and corroborative evidence are the “flat-worlders.” They reason: No need to go over the evidence; no need to debate. In this obstinancy, they deny the fundamental precept of all science and debate. If they didn’t deny it, they might lose power. I appeal to those that have open minds.

You wrote “In the world I inhabit . . . .” Thank you for recognizing the close-minded world you live in.
You also wrote: “In your world, it seems, you wish to have the argument about items ##3 and 4, while dismissing the first two with a wave of the hand saying they are incorrect.” I didn’t dismiss them with a wave of my hand. I didn’t discuss them in depth because they will be discussed in Part II of my eBook. Nonetheless, using arguments that came long after the framing of the Constitution seems very weak in comparison to showing what lead up to the framing. It is the same kind of reasoning that I criticized Steve Tonchen for using. In The-Constitutionist.com, I wrote a long response to Tonchen’s style of argument covering “natural subject” (Mario Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner hinged much of their arguments on this term), which is similar in structure to your attributing supreme importance to what came after as an explanation of what came before. Tonchen propounded:

“2) Regarding the term ‘natural subject’, it appears to me that ‘natural subject’ and ‘natural-born subject’ are synonymous, one being an abbreviation of other. I cannot find any source suggesting that the two terms have materially-different meanings.”

I responded in my short part:

“Where is the logic in calling a two-word term that came before, the abbreviation of a three-word term that came after? Please substantiate your belief that natural subject is the abbreviation—in your sense of a shorter term—of natural-born subject.”

Is not the citing of post-Constitutional Supreme Court cases the same illogical process to “interpret” what came before?

Why do liberals avoid answering pertinent questions and concentrate on demeaning the questions?
You conclude: “There’s no point to my reading your arguments.” This is synonymous to declaring that there is no point in reading anything about any knowledge that contradicts “your” established knowledge. I see mostly “thumbs down” on my comments in this blog. What has happened to the curiosity and open-minedness of Americans? How about if I promise the American voter an entitlement to read my eBook?

As I said when I was thirteen or fourteen, “Those willing to give up freedoms for security neither will get the security they desire nor deserve the freedoms they have.” I said this before I knew about the several individuals in history, like Franklin, who had made up similar adages.

You are now debating me in a more neutral manner. I sincerely thank you for that. But I would be grateful if you answered the legal questions I posed.

lawyers are interested only in legal precedent, the most invasive cancer of our legal system

Yes, well, paying heed to the applicable caselaw and precedent helps one wins cases. Presenting oneself as a “free thinker” who knows more than the judiciary, past and present, and who knows more (apparently) than most historians is an attiude that will tend to lose cases.

Robert Ferguson the historian noted “all our formative documents—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the seminal decisions of the Supreme Court under John Marshall—were drafted by attorneys steeped in Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. So much was this the case that the Commentaries rank second only to the Bible as a literary and intellectual influence on the history of American institutions.”

From what I’ve read, Ferguson’s comment is echoed by a host of other historians, and is amply reflected by the SCOTUS in Smith v. Alabama and later in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

And also the Colonies and every State after the Constitution (save for Louisiana) formally adopted the English common law (sometimes in modified fashion) as the law of that State. So why should “natural born citizen” be understood as intended by the Framers have a meaning taken by reference to other than the common law?

My eBook clearly shows that Blackstone was not the most prominent influence.

And who is it you contend held that greatest position of influence?

I am sure you have some noble reason for not demonstrating your legal prowess by answering the legal questions I posed.

What questions were those? When I reply to a post, I usually work down from the top systematically covering what major points seem to require attention. I don’t recall omitting any questions you asked.

In other words, you are the paradigm of the typical lawyer or judge, who will only deign to debate if the opponent follows the self-ordained script of the judiciary.

Any debate or contest has to have some rules or design by which the matter can be undertaken with a view to who prevails. With many discussions, that is often difficult as there is no “referee” by to gauge the strength of one argument versus another. As to Constitutional law, however, we have such an arbiter: the Courts. But you reject that, which to me is a sign that “debate” will consist solely of you exalting your opinion at every turn. If a consensus of the courts, nor a consensus of historians on a particular point won’t dissuade you, then the discussion become ones of purely subjective standards being tossed back and forth. I have little interest in that at present.

I suggest that is willful ignorance in action and the very reason that no one in over two hundred years, besides I, has resolved the enigma of natural-born citizenship.

You have a most exalted view of yourself.

Karl Rove: “Thanks, but again, no U.S. court has every [sic] agreed with your theory that only someone born on American soil of two American citizen parents is a natural born citizen. Never. Ever.</i.

It may cause a terrible shudder to course through my body just uttering the words, but here goes: On this point, I agree with Karl rove.

You are like those in history that stuck to the belief that the world was flat.

I see Birthers and Flat-earthers as having the greater affininty here. But, again, this just reinforces our differing perspectives.

You have avoided my questions again. They were: “Do you know the uncredited reference sources of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and international diplomatic law? Do you know which public jurist has been cited most often by the U.S. Supreme Court? Do you know the origin of trial by jury? These are but a few of the questions answered in my eBook.” If you don’t know the last question, you certainly have not read Blackstone’s Commentaries in its entirety or other historians I have read.

“Yes, well, paying heed to the applicable caselaw and precedent helps one wins cases. Presenting oneself as a “free thinker” who knows more than the judiciary, past and present, and who knows more (apparently) than most historians is an attiude that will tend to lose cases.”

When it comes to natural-born citizenry, I know more than the historians, judges and lawyers. I don’t think freely on the subject. I followed every possible lead in my research about the term. I walked the path of circumstantial, correlative and corroborative evidence. You, on the other hand, unwilling to read 1,700 pages on the topic, try to explain away the term with legal precedent and the lesser research of people that came before me. You seem to miss my major point. I do not concede authority to the courts over the interpretation of natural born Citizen. History shows the meaning. I have no interest in winning against people whose major concern is power and upholding the system that constitutes the source of their “perks.” I want the sovereign people of America to judge or Congress to use its impeachment power based on the historical facts.

“And who is it you contend held that greatest position of influence?”

If you were to read my eBook, you would understand how I handled the question. If you counted the number of times a jurist was quoted, it would be Montesquieu, but almost all those quotes depict the kind of government post-colonial America should adopt in the new Constitution. The issue of predominant influence presented a very complex one. Some historians think Locke was most influential. Fortunately, in 1700 pages, I was able to trace the influences of most jurists, but I never came up with a quantitative determination.

I can say with confidence a few things. Blackstone was not the most influential. English common law did not have the great influence historians think it did. The framers rejected natural-born subject as a source for their natural born Citizen. The primary influence on the natural born Citizen issue was Vattel. The primary influence on the type of government was Montesquieu.

“So why should “natural born citizen” be understood as intended by the Framers have a meaning taken by reference to other than the common law?”

It takes hundreds of pages to answer that question. I answered it in my eBook. You cannot encapsulate answers to questions like this one in a few paragraphs. I’d like to ask you whether jury by trial should be deemed one of the concepts taken from English common law? Were ex post facto and attainder laws not a part of English common law since they were banned by the Constitution? Please don’t forget these questions. They can be answered concisely.

“As to Constitutional law, however, we have such an arbiter: the Courts. But you reject that, which to me is a sign that “debate” will consist solely of you exalting your opinion at every turn. If a consensus of the courts, nor a consensus of historians on a particular point won’t dissuade you, then the discussion become ones of purely subjective standards being tossed back and forth. I have little interest in that at present.”

Constitutional law, if it means the Constitution itself and not the law that came after, was not intended to be open to arbitration by the courts. That’s why our present-day Constitution in its court interpretation has little resemble to its plain English composition. I don’t present subjective standards in my book. I present facts.

“You have a most exalted view of yourself.”

It sure sounds like it, doesn’t it? I ask you, though: Who has the more exalted view of himself, the person that has spent years in research and written a 1700-page book to prove his conclusions or the person who believes he can peremptorily discount that research which he has not read?

I will grant you that I have an exalted view of my research. I am good at research. In my manuscript on Africa, I uncovered the details of an international bank fraud, participated in by the new president and some influential people from the decolonizing country. One intelligence organization raided my quarters. Another, the CIA, tried to extract the information from me but they weren’t willing to trade information. They let me enter into a death trap, however. My manuscript was later banned by the decolonizing country and the decolonized country–that wall of silence I am so familiar with.

History happens in one way. Multiple versions of the facts cannot exist in harmony. Disprove my facts, which you are not willing to review, and I will listen to you or any other lawyer or judge who is ready to invest the time to learn. I will debate you extensively like I have debated Steven Tonchen. He has an excellent understanding of the historical facts involved. I respect him. We disagree about a few conclusions resulting from those facts.

I respect you for having faith in your opinions such that you are willing to expose them. I do not respect your lack of interest in learning something that has never been presented in history the way I have. You’re right; you definitely agree with Karl Rove.

You have avoided my questions again. They were: “Do you know the uncredited reference sources of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and international diplomatic law? Do you know which public jurist has been cited most often by the U.S. Supreme Court? Do you know the origin of trial by jury? These are but a few of the questions answered in my eBook.”

I will give a brief “I don’t know” as to the first two. On the third, the system known to our forefathers was the English jury system (the Colonists were predominantly of English origin), though I suppose there may be precursors to the English jury system.

You, on the other hand, unwilling to read 1,700 pages on the topic, try to explain away the term with legal precedent and the lesser research of people that came before me.

And, despite your claimed superior knowledge, I would win any case in any Court arguing against the “two citizen parent” theory. But we both know that. You wish the debate of operate under a different paradigm.

You seem to miss my major point. I do not concede authority to the courts over the interpretation of natural born Citizen.

Oh, I get the point well enough. I’ll give you credit that unlike M. Apuzzo and others you don’t try to dance around Wong Kim Ark and pretend it really doesn’t sink the “two citizen parent” argument. You just declare the Courts of no concern. You get points for boldness.

Constitutional law, if it means the Constitution itself and not the law that came after, was not intended to be open to arbitration by the courts.

Maybe next time around instead of inventing a bug-zapper, you can crack the space-time paradox and create a time machine and go back to a world where your dream of a “pure” Constitutional system freee of judicial interference existed. But since 1803 the world Americans have inhabited has included judicial review.

I respect you for having faith in your opinions such that you are willing to expose them. I do not respect your lack of interest in learning something that has never been presented in history the way I have.

Perhaps if Congress passes legislation to restrict so-called “anchor babies” then the SCOTUS will have occasion to revisit the topic and the WKA decision. If so, then at that point I might find all your pre-1840 stuff more relevant than I do at present (which currently stands at “very little relevance”).

But at present, I have little desire to debate what I consider mere preamble to the main event: SCOTUS authority. So this is my last post on this topic.

I cede the last word to you. For an author of 1700 plus pages, I’m sure you’re up to the task.

Before my last reply, since you are not willing to debate the substance of accepted court viewpoints on the issue of presidential eligibility, I want to thank you for hanging in there as long as you have. Indeed, you stayed longer than most liberals. You have demonstrated the quicksand America finds herself in–a refusal to be open-minded judicially.

“I will give a brief “I don’t know” as to the first two [questions].”

That’s an honest answer. Almost 100% of America would have to answer the same as you did. The answer to the two-part question is Vattel’s The Law of Nations. A close examination of The Declaration of Independence shows that Jefferson relied on his 1775 Amsterdam edition of The Law of Nations to write The Declaration of Independence. Few know that in the U.S. Almost the entire nation believes that Jefferson penned the document without reference books, using only his genius. Other countries, including third-world countries like Brazil, know the truth, but Americans don’t. You won’t either because you won’t educate yourself unless it is with liberal research. If you had read historians from foreign countries and all of Blackstone’s Commentaries, you would know that trial by jury did not originate in English common law. With deeper research, you might have also learned that James Madison was not the Father of the Constitution, although he contributed to it. Clear and convincing evidence points to Charles Pinckney as the Father of the Constitution.

“And, despite your claimed superior knowledge, I would win any case in any Court arguing against the “two citizen parent” theory. But we both know that. You wish the debate of operate under a different paradigm.”

I grant you that you would win in any court presided over by an activist judge, but America would lose by your victory. As far as your reference to my “claimed superior knowledge,” it is logical I claim superior knowledge. How else could I state that I am the only one in over two hundred years that has unraveled the enigma of natural born Citizen beyond a reasonable doubt? On the other hand, in my eBook, I criticize my writing ability, especially my proofreading. I called myself a fool two times in reference to the way I first analyzed two famous emails that floated around the Internet. I also acknowledged that I had originally made the same critical error that Jerome Corsi made in his Where’s the Birth Certificate? These are several of the very small number of times I go beyond the 1840s.

I praise my research. That’s it. It’s all about my research you don’t want to read.

“Maybe next time around instead of inventing a bug-zapper, you can crack the space-time paradox and create a time machine and go back to a world where your dream of a “pure” Constitutional system freee of judicial interference existed. But since 1803 the world Americans have inhabited has included judicial review.”

Thanks for reminding me of the cancer of precedence. Once a bad precedent is established, it usually gets expanded into a worse precedent. It is almost impossible to strike down, especially when the legal profession’s power and remuneration are linked to it. I don’t wish to live in that world. I want to live in a world that is willing to educate itself without prejudicial precedent interpreting the Constitution itself. I want the plain English of the Constitution to be honored. I have no problem living and endorsing the Supreme Court’s power to assess the constitutionality of legislation that came after the Constitution. I will never endorse the Supreme Court’s power to rely on British explanatory acts to “explain” legislation under the Constitution in order to try to make it seem constitutional, as Roberts did for Obamacare.

Sad for people who don’t like reading history. Great for people who want to remain willfully ignorant based on their ADD. All the answers to the questions that the people writing comments here have about the presidential eligibility clause are in my eBook. Obama’s birth certificates are mentioned but glossed over because they have absolutely no relevance, except for the fact that in them, it is revealed that his father was not an American citizen.

Seventeen hundred pages of garbage is still garbage. I’ve read history and more importantly I’ve read the law. Birthers have failed and will always fail because they either cannot understand the law or attempt to lie about it.

Thank you for being a poster person for willful ignorance. You chose to research nothing about my web site or my eBook. You chose not to go to Amazon and read the two reviews of my eBook. You chose ignorance and judgment without research. The meager research on the historical, linguistic and legal aspects of natural-born citizenry in the last two centuries is the reason for America’s failure to understand what John Jay meant by natural born Citizen. You tell me you have read history and the law, yet you judge that over 1,000 pages of actual history in the words of our founders and framers and the laws they legislated are garbage without spending $12 to ascertain whether you are right. Is it the $12 that stops you? I will send you a free copy if you give me your address by visiting my web site at The-Constitutionist.com. In fact, I will send free copies to the first twenty people who ask for them through my web site if they mention this blog.

There is a good chance Obama will not be serving as President in 2013. A new Quo Warranto action has been properly and timely brought that will force Obama to prove he is a natural born citizen. WE NEED YOUR HELP! Please watch the following video where I show you exactly what you can do to support the Quo Warranto action!

Re: “When it comes to natural-born citizenry, I know more than the historians, judges and lawyers.”

Sure you do. But, even if you did, they get to decide, you don’t. That is why Obama will be sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States later this month. The Chief Justice knows that in fact the meaning of Natural Born Citizen does indeed come from the common law, and does indeed refer to the place of birth. YOU say that it doesn’t, but the Supreme Court is the body that decides, and IT said that it does. Here are its words:

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

That is why Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, had this in his book:

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

You say that both the Supreme Court and Meese are wrong. Well, if you cannot get a single member of the U Electoral College to vote against Obama in agreement with your theory that two citizen parents are required, and if you cannot get a single member of Congress to vote not to confirm Obama’s election—and neither took place either in the 2008 or 2012 elections—then it is good proof that your nutty theory is just your nutty theory.

What is it with you people who are so willing to condemn my book as garbage and nutty without reading it? Doesn’t that remind you of the dark ages, or even the less enlightened parts of the Renaissance? You are all poster people for closed mindedness. Your logic is fallacious. Axiom 6 in my eBook handles your refusal to open your minds. “Axiom 6. Political analysts must apply the same logic to both sides of any political dispute in order to be fair and consistent.” Unfortunately, following Axiom 6 may force you to admit you are wrong.

You can read one of my exchanges with The Heritage Foundation in The-Constitutionist.com, but I am sure that the effort to key in The-Constitutionist.com will be too much for you. The Heritage Foundation is as closed minded as you on this issue. I withhold a slight chance that Jim DeMint will turn that around, but he has confronted me with silence so far. How much faith can you put in an organization that refuses to read an eBook when they could assign a mere hundred pages to 17 of their people and get together in a conference room to discuss the facts I present. The time investment would be perhaps 3 hours per day for three days. The foundation has a complimentary copy of my eBook.

Yes, I know more than the Supreme Court when it comes to natural-born citizenship and many other topics. You will never know what I know because your dark-ages mentality prohibits you from studying things you disagree with.

The Earth was flat once because everybody but a miniscule minority said so. I am living in that intellectual world today when it comes to natural-born citizenry. You offer no proof against my facts, just preconceived opinions. You are dead wrong about thinking English common law was the source of our Constitution. You are correct that I will not get to decide. I am but one voice against the political correctness of those that covet their power and wish to sustain the system. Besides, I have no desire to be the one that decides the fate of the American people. I want the people to decide their own fate. I only beseech them to read my eBook. I will not give up my right to free speech, however.

When is one of the closed minded going to break down and read my eBook? Do so few in America today have an inquisitive spirit? Almost 100% of Americans want to stay comfortably on shore while a single explorer plows the deep. There are a few, like the people who read my eBook and posted their reviews on Amazon, willing to read the report of my around-the-world voyage.

I admit I was totally naïve about the spirit of America. I am sad and disillusioned. I challenge you to read my eBook and dispute the facts. What would you say to a person that challenged you to a fifty-yard dash? I don’t have to run because I know I am faster than you? What kind of intellectual integrity is that? My editor calls it the magical reasoning of liberals.

Regarding your reasoning. It is time for you to recognize that reasoning has nothing to do with the law. Its meaning is decided by the US Supreme Court, and the court HAS DECIDED. It decided in the Wong Kim Ark case that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (which historical research confirms) and that it refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents of a US-born citizen. That is the law. You may argue that your logic is better than the court’s—but that is not the way that the law works. That is what the Heritage Foundation recognizes. And in fact that was recognized by every single elector in the Electoral College. Not a single one of them changed her or his vote from Obama to McCain in 2008 or Obama to Romney in 2012 out of the belief either that Obama was born in a foreign country or that two citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born US citizen.

“Regarding your reasoning. It is time for you to recognize that reasoning has nothing to do with the law. Its meaning is decided by the US Supreme Court, and the court HAS DECIDED. It decided in the Wong Kim Ark case that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (which historical research confirms) and that it refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents of a US-born citizen. That is the law.”

That was an outstanding reply! It was realistic. The respondent stated that the law has nothing to do with reasoning; i.e. reason. I imagine that the respondent didn’t mean his statement to cover all cases and laws. I don’t want to paint a realistic respondent in such a way. I want to give him credit for confessing that the distortions of the Constitution, which he probably doesn’t call distortions, have nothing to do with reasoning. It is far better to recognize this fact than use the magical reasoning of liberals to justify the Supreme Court’s distorted interpretations.

I shall not relinquish to the Supreme Court my power to reason. The justices’ inferior knowledge, especially in their belief that our “Natural Born” comes totally from English common law, doesn’t mean they can force feed me with that erroneous conclusion. The one link that the natural-born of English law has with the American natural-born is the native-born part. Let the justices have the guts to defend their conclusion that our natural-born doesn’t include perfect jus sanguinis against what I have presented. If I am so misguided, it should be easy to make my historical facts look ridiculous. They’ll have to refute 2,338 footnoted historical sources. If they are such dignified, intelligent men and women, why would they shrink from my challenge? I contend that they fear the truth.

My fellow Americans, do you want an “unreasonable” Supreme Court to distort your Constitution so much that it is unrecognizable from the original because the Supreme Court has unconstitutionally given itself the power to do so and you have allowed this court to get away with it for over 200 years? The respondent is correct in his unknowing implication that our laws are legislated, interpreted and executed by powers that manipulate the Constitution without any reasoning that would interfere with their agendas. They exert their power without regard for the sovereignty and welfare of the people being governed. Even Toy Story 3 understood that principle.

Congress is the only branch that constitutionally legislates. Regulatory agencies unconstitutionally legislate, this president unconstitutionally uses executive orders to legislate, and the Supreme Court unconstitutionally interprets the Constitution. Do you want American law to disregard reason? Do you want American law to disregard history by telling you that a natural-born citizen is really just a native-born citizen or is based on English common or statutory law when it is not? Do you want to be led toward socialism by the kind of president that our framers ferociously safeguarded against in the Constitution? Do you want to ignore this primary safeguard against foreign influence because our Supreme Court has an agenda other than the Constitution? Remember, you the people are in sole possession of the sovereignty of the United States and your Congress has the power to impeach Obama based on “reason” inherent in the true definition of “natural born Citizen” without interference from or deference to the Supreme Court. Do you not read between the lines of this respondent that he fears upsetting the status quo by going back to the original Constitution?

Is not most of the world ruled by the laws dictated by dictators and governments that don’t hold the welfare of their people in high regard and simply tell their people that they are going to obey laws meant to carry out the agendas of the dictators and governments? Weren’t we different at one time, the time when our people had the guts to stand up against “unreasonable” government and courts?

“You may argue that your logic is better than the court’s—but that is not the way that the law works. That is what the Heritage Foundation recognizes. And in fact that was recognized by every single elector in the Electoral College. Not a single one of them changed her or his vote from Obama to McCain in 2008 or Obama to Romney in 2012 out of the belief either that Obama was born in a foreign country or that two citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born US citizen.”

Is that the face of proof these days? Thank God, we didn’t have a Supreme Court to decide the shape of the Earth. No right-thinking explorer would have left his shores. Do you want your Supreme Court to rule that there is a Santa Claus when there isn’t? Come on people; stop eating the Supreme Court’s pabulum.

You need the special “Birther glasses” to understand that Onaka’s words — “A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii” — REALLY mean that Onaka asserted the President’s birth in Hawaii cannot be verified. Magic, invisible ink or something that only Birthers see. The situation remains “fluid.”

I am convinced that there was a real birth certificate for Obama on file at the registrar. As I contend in my eBook , “there is a completely valid explanation for the inconsistencies that Corsi points out in Obama’s short-form birth certificate. The explanation of the inconsistencies points directly to an original long-form filed on or about August 4, 1961, in the handwriting of Obama’s mother, grandmother, grandfather or a friend or relative in the registrar.” I expected to handle this topic in Part II of my book but I am less enthusiastic about writing Part II since Conservatism Inc. has adopted willful ignorance in relation to Part I.

My conclusion does not make Obama’s birth certificate a legal one since I believe whoever filled it out lied. If I am right, it probably has been destroyed due to the participation of Hawaiian officials in a fraud. If you understand the former procedures of the registrar, all the evidence points to this conclusion, especially the birth publications in the two newspapers.

It’s a puzzle why you posted the above as a “reply” to my post, as nothing you write addresses in the least my point. And my point, of course, is that in NO WAY can it be said Onaka “publicly certified” that “Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery.” That claim is absurd, and this blog owner/moderator ought by now to have retracted it.

I am convinced that there was a real birth certificate for Obama on file at the registrar.

And I’m convinced there was and still is. That was part of Dr. Onaka’s certification And it also explains why even Republican officials in Hawaii and Obama’s no-holds-barred political opponents (Hilary Clinton and John McCain) didn’t pursue the matter further.

My conclusion does not make Obama’s birth certificate a legal one since I believe whoever filled it out lied.

Though We the People (the Electorate), the Congress (unanimously), and the Courts (unanimously) have concluded the opposite. You, however, still enjoy the freedom to speculate otherwise. And President Obama enjoys the freedom to carry out the duties of President of the United States for the next 4 years.

If I am right, it probably has been destroyed due to the participation of Hawaiian officials in a fraud.

Even Republican offiicials (which would necessarily be the case during periods when you necessarily would need to posit the conspiracy was being undertaken or continued)???

But I love your classic conspiratorial posturing and ready-made excuse:

“There was a fraud.”

“By what evidence do you claim this fraud?”

“The evidence of the fraud was destroyed by the conspirators; and that further proves my point of fraud.”

I answered the way I did because everyone on both sides of the issue is asking the wrong questions and searching for the wrong things. I will explain my rationale concisely without offering the supporting documentation. It seems that liberals do not want to waste time reading long documentation. Neither do conservatives. I claim that the following analysis is uniquely mine. I ask that people who reproduce it to please cite me as the source since I claim the analysis is under natural copyright.

I found in my research that anyone could walk into the registrar of any of the 50 states in 1961 and ask for a blank birth-certificate form, which he could fill out in long-hand or using a typewriter. This practice survived many years.The forms were similar among the states.

In Hawaii, the person filling out the form would hand it over to the registrar, who would accept it without rigid verification. The person was required to sign his signature on the line of box 18a entitled “Signature of Parent or Other Informant” and to tick off the parent or other box. The signature testified that “I certify that the above stated information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.” Box 19a required the “Signature of Attendant” to affix his signature under the condition that “I hereby certify that this child was born alive on the date and hour stated.” This attestation was legal as long as the person signing his signature was of legal age and really witnessed the birth, wherever and with or without a midwife in attendance.

I contend that someone filled out a blank birth-certificate form on behalf of baby Barack and presented it to the registrar. The register might have asked for proof of the signer’s identity in the form of a driver’s license or a passport. It was not unusual that the registrar accepted the filled-out form blindly. Hawaii was famous for allowing people that had not been born in America or in another American state to become “legal” American citizens regardless of reality.

On August 13, 1961, The Sunday Advertiser published the announcement that young Barack was born on August 4. The Star Bulletin published the same announcement a day later on August 14. Neither newspaper allowed parents to call in birth announcements. The newspapers produced public lists every week based on lists sent by the registrar compiled from hospital lists and walk-ins. A filled-out birth certificate had to exist. The delay in the publication supports that the list did not come from a hospital as the original source and that it came from a walk-in.

The WND published an article charging that Obama’s short-form birth-certificate was suspicious because the Nordyke twins, born at Kapi’olani Hospital one day after Obama, had lower birth certificate numbers than Obama’s birth-certificate number. Other inconsistencies were noted.

The number inconsistency is easily explained. The registrar accumulates all certificates for one month. At the end of the month, a clerk assembles the birth certificates by alphabetic order. Numbers are assigned to the birth certificates. “N” comes before “O,” which explains why Obama’s birth certificate has a higher number. The original certificates are bound in a volume given an identity.

All that needs to be done to solve the issue of the original birth certificate would be for Congress to subpoena the volume of August 1961. Who cares what Onaka says? Show us the appropriate volume. Everything else is an artifice.

You mean you just realized his birth certificate is fake? I knew this a while ago. 1. It lists his father’s race as ‘African’. In 1961, they didn’t use the term ‘African’, they used either ‘black’ or ‘negro’. 2. It list’s his father’s birthplace as Kenya, East Africa. However, Kenya gained it’s independence from the UK in January, 1963… two years after BHO was supposedly born. 3. The hospital he was supposedly born at. I did a bit of research and found out that the hospital used a different name in 1961. It was known at the time as Kapiʻolani Maternity Home. It merged with the Kapiʻolani Hospital in 1978 (17 years after his supposed birth) when it adopted the name that is printed on the birth certificate.

Obama is a known fraud USURPER as such he cannot be IMPEACHED because he was never legally President to begin with and all who co conspired to allow a New World Order Fraud Puppet to USURP the office of President and attempt to destroy the United States will all ahortly beh arrested tried hung and shot for Treason and Conspiracy to overthrow along with a host of other seditious charges…..F’M all and may they all rot and burn in hell.

Also…..The Constitution is Clear: As long as a FRAUD USURPS the office of President Congress and the Senate can make and pass no laws!

It doesn’t take an expert to figure out the Birth certificate was forged. All you have to do is look at how it says his fathers race was “African” to know it’s a fake. Back in the 60’s it would have said either Negro or Negroid and definately not “African”. It’s true that the Layering proves it to be a fake also but clearly one does not to be Sherlock Holmes to figure it out. People are saying it should not matter but those are the same people who think the constitution does not matter either. Since Obama is a fraud it seems to me that all the executive orders he was supposed to have signed should be declared null and void.

Obama usurped the Presidency during time of war. Obama is not nor has he ever been the bona-fides POTUS. Biden was not elected legally either because Obama is a fraud. John Boehner is the technical President of the United States at this time. Impeachment of individuals who have never legally entered into said Office are improper. Impeachment would serve to validate a Fraud. Obama can be arrested on a simple warrant and need NOT be tried in the Senate since he has never been the legally elected President. Obama is a private citizen,an imposter. Obama can be tried in the US District Court in DC wherein the crime of Usurpation occurred. In addition,Obama is a SPY under the UCMJ at Sec.906,Art.106. Obama is subject to Court-Martial for being a Spy. Obama is a traitor under the Constitution and 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381.

A “Natural-Born Citizen” is a person who meets both Jus Soli and 100% Jus Sanquinis.
“One born ON U.S. Soil…” IN ADDITION TO being born “…of ParentS who are BOTH Citizens” themselves when that person was born. The absence of one part negates the other part.